Olympus Stylus 1 First Impressions Review

Note - the images used in this article are of a pre-production Stylus 1 that Olympus describes as 'not cosmetically final'. This means that they may not be entirely representative of the final production camera.

The rapid collapse of the compact camera market has pushed all the major manufacturers to look for new markets - to create reasons for people to still need a 'real' camera as well as a smartphone. At one end of the spectrum, this has meant attempts at 'social' cameras, such as Canon's PowerShot N but, more interesting to us, it's meant much more capable, higher-end cameras, such as Sony's Cyber-shot RX100. The latest example is Olympus's range-topping Stylus 1.

It's probably the most capable compact the company has made - a feature-packed, flexible camera with a lot of direct control and the longest zoom range we can remember seeing on a camera with a 1/1.7"-type sensor. In terms of styling, it's been modeled on the company's excellent OM-D E-M5, but in concept it's perhaps closer to being a super XZ-2 - the company's erstwhile top-end enthusiast model.

The Stylus 1 utilizes a 12MP BSI CMOS sensor similar to that used in the XZ-2 (and many other cameras in the enthusiast sector), set behind a 28-300mm equivalent lens. That in itself would be interesting enough, but the lens's constant F2.8 maximum aperture makes the whole package very impressive. It also has a built-in electronic viewfinder that's borrowed from the E-M5, and which with its 1.44M dot resolution and 0.58x magnification, is larger and sharper than almost any other 'superzoom' camera.

The obvious other reference point is Sony's recently announced Cyber-shot RX10 - a camera offering a 24-200mm equivalent, constant F2.8 lens, and an even larger viewfinder. The important difference is sensor size - the Stylus 1 uses a smaller sensor, providing a different balance of size, price and (in theory) image quality. Overall, then, the Stylus 1 offers another balance of size, price and capability in a sector that had, for a long time, settled into offering just one or two body styles - instead sitting somewhere between an enthusiast compact and a conventional superzoom.

Olympus Stylus 1 key features

12MP 1/1.7"-type BSI CMOS sensor

28-300mm equivalent optically-stabilized F2.8 lens

Two-mode (click/free turning) control dial

Built-in 3 EV Neutral Density filter

1.44M dot LCD electronic viewfinder

1.04M dot 3" tilting touchscreen rear LCD

ISO 100 - 12800

Built-in Wi-Fi with smartphone control

Many of the features that appear in the Stylus 1 are ones that we've seen before in the company's PEN series of cameras - its Wi-Fi works in much the same way as its recent, flagship E-M1 model. This means it has one of the easier-to-setup Wi-Fi systems - you can either install the Olympus app on an iOS or Android device, then use the QR code on the back of the camera to establish a connection, or type them in yourself. This second option makes it fairly easy to connect other people's devices to your camera, so that you can share selected images with them, without them needing to download the app.

The Stylus 1's OM-D-esque design risks being a little misleading - not just by potentially diluting the public perception of the Micro Four Thirds cameras, but also because the Stylus's control method owes more to the XZ-2 than the E-M5. The click/free dial around the lens is the primary control, but there is also a second dial on top of the camera. This does the same things as the small, fiddly and imprecise rear dial on the XZ-2, but is very much more usable, giving the camera a true twin-dial interface. However, what you don't get is the ability to directly access AF point selection - something we kept expecting from a body that looks and feels so much like an OM-D.

It's a RX10 competitor, then?

When Sony announced its RX10, we felt it necessary to point out that knowing a camera's F number and equivalent focal length isn't enough, if you're going to understand the consequences of its sensor size. The same is true with the Stylus 1 - it gives a good idea of what you gain and lose compared to cameras such as Panasonic's DMC FZ200, but also what you're giving up in compared to the bigger, more expensive RX10.

A quick recap, then. Although in terms of exposure (and by definition), F2.8 = F2.8 = F2.8, that doesn't tell the whole story. In terms of depth-of-field and total light on the sensor (which is a major determinant of image quality), you also need to consider sensor size.

Equivalent focal length

Maximum aperture range

Sensor size

Equivalent aperture range

Panasonic DMC-FZ200

25-600mm

F2.8

1/2.3"-type

F15.5

Nikon Coolpix P7800

28-200mm

F2.0 - 4.0

1/1.7"-type

F9.5-19

Olympus Stylus 1

28-300mm

F2.8

1/1.7"-type

F13

Sony Cyber-shot DSC-RX10

24-200mm

F2.8

1"-type

F7.6

So, while the Panasonic DMC-FZ200 at first glance looks most impressive, the equivalent aperture figures tell a very different story. Equivalent apertures tell you how the lens compares to a full frame lens with similar characteristics - much as the more familiar 'equivalent focal length' does. However, rather than telling you which lens has a comparable field-of-view, it tells you which full frame lens would provide the same control over depth-of-field and the total light hitting the sensor.

So, while the 'equivalent focal length' and 'maximum aperture' columns tell one story, the 'equivalent aperture range' figures paint a rather different picture. In the graph below, the lower the line, the better the camera is likely to be for low-light image quality and blurring backgrounds, at any given equivalent focal length.

As you can see, the Stylus 1 isn't about to compete with DSLRs or other larger-sensor cameras, but offers a competitive balance of lens range and brightness when compared to compact peers such as the Nikon P7800. So, while the lens isn't as bright as the likes of the company's own XZ-2, with all the depth-of-field and low light benefits that brings, it does offer a significant advantage in terms of range.

Comments

Just got the Stylus 1 and at 1st look, seems to be just about perfect for a walk-around + camera. Biggest disappointment BY FAR is the lack of AUTO- ISO in the manual mode!! I always shoot raw and have used auto ISO for the past several years.

This is the same mistake Oly made with the XZ-2 (and XZ-1 before it) and which Panny made with each camera of theirs which I've owned. Strange when the lowliest PEN cameras have had this superb feature, which I also find very, very useful, for years.

The Introduction page states the viewfinder magnification is 0.58, while the Specifications page says it is 1.15.

Which is correct? Or are the two numbers describing different meanings for "viewfinder magnification"?

A more general number would be this: When using the camera with both eyes open and one eye on the eyecup, at what zoom value does object size through the viewfinder match that of the naked eye? (That is, a 1:1 size relationship.) Since a 1.0x viewfinder has this behavior at 50mm zoom (assuming 100% viewfinder coverage), the fiddly magnification factor can be replaced by a more understandable (and more useful) zoom value.

So, if I'm a two-eye photographer who most often shoots at 100mm, what viewfinder magnification level would work best for me?

Who cares? Why should I have to do any math to figure that out? I'd much prefer to pick the camera that offers "1:1 EVF @ 100mm", which comes closest to describing how I'd use the camera.

So it is impossible to have a regular cap and a UV filter infront of th lens?And impossible to have that unique lens cap and a UV filter behind it?If the answer is yes to both then my interest is gone.

It's a strange product for me, considering having XZ-2 as an option. The only advantage of new Stylus 1 is of course the range of zoom - that is out of question. But, XZ-2 has much faster lens wide open and even faster at it's long end (eq 112mm). This means it's simply much better from wide open until 112mm than new Stylus 1. So the price difference ($400+) is only for the range and actually light drop. Now, second thing is of course the VF, but this can be attached to XZ-2 as extra accessory (VF-2 with same resolution is about $200) and then the proce difference drops but is still significant. More over, IMO, removable VF is a pro, since when I dont need it, the camera becomes significantly smaller and still pockatable, while Stylus 1 is far from pockatable one. Simply no reason for me to buy it over XZ-2

IMHO, you underestimate the usefulness of the viewfinder. That being said, I'd prefer an camera with the EVF the XZ-2s shorter, but faster lens, for a price point smack in between the Stylus 1 and the XZ-2

There's no way I'm paying $700 for a small sensor camera. These things are way over-priced. If they can't make them for less, they should put in a 1" sensor (which is no longer expensive, while optics and casing/controls prices follow inflation).

For me this Stylus 1 concept makes just sense: better IQ than all the rediculous 40x+ superzoomsI seldomly go beyond 300mm only with a prime I might go 400mm on a DSLR (=50-200mm on an Olympus)for me, I like the xz-2, but the reach is just to short, and I started using the LF1 more and more.I like the VF allways on the cam like the Stylus 1 (not the VF of the LF1).In the beginning the XZ-2 was very expensive too, but than the XZ-1 was for allmost half the price, so wait a bit until under $ 500don't forget the constant F2.8 and...never forget... it is allways about compromises

I want a camera that makes sense to use without a bag or backpack, but gives up as little as possible to make that happen. I want a great EVF (I'm an in-the-action photographer), a tiltable display (for over-the-crowd shots), a 10x zoom for "human" distances (my subjects are always people, and I want them recognizable), and an on-camera flash to provide a touch of daylight-fill. And the biggest sensor that fits.

What am I willing to give up to get it? I can live without using additional filters. The same for 1080-60p video or great microphones. I don't care about a 50x zoom.

Could the Stylus 1 be improved? Sure! But from what I can tell, mainly in the firmware: For example, any camera that can take bracketed shots and can paste a panorama should be able to do in-camera HDR!

The quick access C1 and C2 custom positions on the mode dial were incredibly useful on my Panasonic GF1. I never understood why Olympus never put this on their micro four thirds cameras, as they make a big thing about customization. I have to laugh when I see this really useful feature on the Stylus, yet not on their top of the range flagship E-M1. Thankfully, the E-M1 does have the same art filter setting, so it can take photos like my daughters VTECH kiddy zoom!

The E-M1 does this differently. Rather than have marked C1 and C2 positions, the camera can store up to four custom settings memories (called MySets), which can then be assigned to any position on the mode dial.

I've got both a GF1 and an Olympus E-PL3 (which also lacks custom positions on the mode dial), and what Olympus loses in quick access they gain in the ability to change exposure mode within a custom function setting. I use my MySet functions for different black & white settings, and the ability to switch between Aperture Priority, Shutter Priority and Manual within the same custom function is really useful. What the Olympus lacks is the ability to call up the MySet menu quickly using the function button - also, they really need to sort out the MySet interface - there are a couple of unnecessary steps that not only slow the process down, they make it too easy to cancel the process just as you think you're done. Even worse, if you're trying to change settings in a hurry, it's ridiculously easy to over-write a MySet setting without meaning to.

Ken Yull. I don't know where you got that idea. This is quoted from Olympus site as being accessories & the above thread shows that filters are used for the adapter tube that takes that TCON-17X lens on the XZ-2.

I have been kicking around with an XZ-1 since the camera came out and I am a little embarrassed how much I end up liking this sensibly-sized camera. All of these 1:1.6 and 1:1.7 cameras have the ability to shoot decent pictures at 400 ISO and what saves the day for me is the bright f1.8-f2.5 lens. It is rare for any need to violate the 400 ISO boundary. There are two stops of protection built into the lens. which kind of reminds me of a similar feeling about my DSLR with two stops of headroom on the sensor. Of course, bright sunshine ruins the fun because you really need a viewfinder. While the Stylus 1 lacks the two stop advantage at the wide end, 2.8 is not far from the 2.5 at the far end is 2.5 times narrower. So... Maybe Santa is thinking hard about this camera.

I think Santa is going to be good to me this Christmas. This will be a nice alternative to carrying the E-M5 kit around when all I want is one small bag with sufficient reach in the zoom & compactness.

Stop using aperture charts with mm delimited X axises! It should be logarithmic. 24-48 is the same distance as 150-300.

The chart goes 12.5x zoom in range from 24 to 300. If you gave it 10 equally spaced delimiters they'd be:

243140516685109141181233300

Also, it'd be nice is you put on a dotted line extending at the equivalent telephoto aperture from cropping. The fact that the Stylus goes to 300 and the RX-10 only goes to 200 may appear a range where the olympus has an advantage. It of course doesn't as simply cropping the 200mm image from an RX-10 still provides an advantage all the way out to 300mm.

I reckon this camera will find a big niche; I for one, will buy unless something more appealing comes along soon. I have many digital cameras, even though I am an ex-professional, I want a camera which is small, non-interchangeable lens and with acceptable quality for websites and a max print size of 10x8 inches. My NEX6 with the compact zoom lens is good and allows cropping with its APC sensor. The 24mm wide end is very useful but the tele end is inadequate for a travel camera.This Oly almost hits the spot.Good: Quality construction, EVF, tilt screen, longish zoom, tilt screen, small size, control options.Bad: Only 1/1.7 sensor, 28mm max wide, no trick panorama, no HDR, no multi-exposure low-light etc.

Obviously, a lot of advancements have been made since the Fujifilm Finepix S6000fd was released in 2006, but it has a couple of things that for whatever reason, other bridge cameras don't include -- a manual zoom lens with filter threads. (The S6000fd has the same size sensor and zoom range as the Stylus 1.) The manual zoom is much easier to control and also saves on the battery. Being able to use filters, especially a polarizer, is great.

The comparisons to RX10 are meaningless - the cameras are clearly not in the same class. Of course RX10 gives better quality, but it is also twice as heavy and almost twice as expensive.Its competitors are similarly-sized and priced cameras with viewfinders - Nikon P7800, Fuji X20, Canon G16 maybe. Even Nikon V2 with 10-100 lens - if it is the only lens you are planning to have. ;-)

As you know, pros that use those models would rather use external or off-camera flashes, singly or in multiples (different angles). Using on-camera flash is mostly for amateurs. Also, OM-D cameras do not have prisms since the viewfinders are electronic, not optical.

I am struggling with the point of this body with this sensor.If I want a small sensor super zoom I'll get the excellent panasonic tx40 or the sony hx50. Extra controls for a sensor of this size makes hardly any difference.

The Sony RX10 is a neat compromise. Interested to actually hold one myself.

tx40/hx50 will give nowhere near the image quality in low light/indoors - featuring BOTH smaller sensor and much darker lenses.Also the convenience you have when shooting with zoom with fixed aperture should not be underestimated - unless you are shooting in Auto only. Say, you have set your shooting parameters as you want them (especially in low light - that means wide open). Now you zoom in to follow you subject - and your ISO and/or exposure times start to creep up. And then you zoom out - will they return to the old value or keep aperture etc at the same values as at the long end? What is you touched a control in between?

Been waiting for a camera with a spec like this to come out for a long time. Looks great on paper. But, am I the only one who finds the IQ in the samples rather disappointing? The Nikon P7700/P7800 seems to manage a whole lot better with the same sized sensor.

It's the one thing that's keeping me from being very enthousiastic about it. Lots of great 7700/7800 shots around with loads of detail and vibrant colours....The specs are quite promising, now a few decent sample-shots to prove the fact that this is a very nice camera IQ-wise!

OK, thanks for the replies guys. Hopefully there is nothing in it as you say.peevee1 - I agree with your other comment about its competitors. The Nikon V2 or V3? if out soon was what I was considering before this. Obviously you get more there for your money but the simplicity of use and price point of the Stylus 1 package is hard to resist.

"The Nikon V2 or V3? if out soon was what I was considering before this. Obviously you get more there for your money"

That is the thing - you don't. 2-4 times darker 10-100 lens (in most FLs it is 3-4 darker) negates all advantages of 3 times bigger sensor, and the V2 sensor is not even BSI-CMOS so is not as efficient per area. And the Nikon V2+10-100 is $1200, so the price is also much higher. There is no V3 yet, and might never be.

Why put a tiny sensor in a Super Body? That is my first impression and question for this camera, after reading the previews. The reasons might be: 1) Cost, 2) Keep old super-zoom system design. I guess Olympus just want to make some difference to compete with iPhone-camera in case DC would be dead. ;-)If the sensor is larger, even little bit, I would like to buy a Style 1. Otherwise, I will better be staying with my K01 for a lighter complement camera. ;-(

Interesting camera, but why are the samples so dull in color cast? I would expect Panasonic to respond with the successor to the LX7 soon, for Holiday sales, correct?But why is the image quality of the LX7 (in the studio scene), so soft in comparison to most others, almost like they made a settings error or had its IS on causing blur in a tripod shot? and the XZ-2 shot looks superior to most compacts, and some DSLR shots as well in the comparison tool?!

I don't really get these "in betweeny" cameras. To me a superzoom is 30-50x or more if possible. Well I don't know what other people want them for but I would think a lot would be for birders trying to get a presentable record shot of something 100m away. These cameras can beat a cropped DSLR in that respect and can now match digiscoping but much easier. I don't really see what the Stylus 1 can do that can't be done for the same cost and size and better quality with a micro 4/3 system

There is no way m43 is competitive with the Stylus 1 in weight, size and cost. The 14-150mm is 280g and 600 dollars. Add a mid 200-300g body on blow out for 250 bucks and that still exceeds the Stylus in cost.

i had the xs1 for a few days. unfortunately, the IQ was very, VERY unsatisfying to me...no crop possible at all, and 1600x1600 pixel was the maximum of showing a fullsize pic, either. i loved the DSLR-like usage but that´s not all.....

Same experience here with the X-S1 as orion1983. Great build, ergonomics and EVF but very poor IQ for the price - very, very soft images and lots of blown highlights even in "flat" lighting conditions (not to mention the droopy lens at full extension). A great shame Fuji didn't fix these issues and come up with an X-S2. As it was, I sent it back and settled with the FZ200.

Fuji xs-1? Nice concept, but worst development. This camera had so many issues, that fuji stop the production and quickly all the remaining cameras dissappeared from japanese shop shelves, despite they proudly show "made in japan" at the debut.

I tried out the XS-1, I thought the image quality was pretty good. But I thought the image stabilization was sub par, and my copy of it...the LCD would start flickering if there was a slight breeze, plus it was too heavy. But if Fuji could cut a little weight off of the camera and release a new one with the x-trans sensor that might be a compelling camera.

I had bought two X-S1 and noticed that one had a worse IQ than the other. Kept the better one...Sometimes, I have to switch to velvia, giving more pleasing colours. Compared to both FZ-28 and FZ-38 as well as to the P7100, pictures of X-S1 are almost 100% sharp.Resolution of full zoom is a very little better than a crop of my D90 and the Sigma-Zoom at 250mm. If Fuji can go up to 600mm on a 2/3' sensor, why can't the others (Nikon P7800, Canon G16 or Stylus 1) with smaller sensors build a longer zoom? At least, longer than Stylus 1?

Very nice camera. It is possible for it to replace my e-pl1 in most situations. The only think that scares me is the hump for viewfinder. I'd really love to see a new camera without it. But otherwise I see no negatives :)

Very smart move from Olympus,... use the previous OMD-E-M5 body and turn it into affordable high power zoom lens camera with f2.8. Sounds Good to me. I am not an Olympus fans and I respect the ideas. I wish Olympus continuing doing amazing things. Thank You.

To some ppl here say lotsa complaints, please... calm down. Why complaining? Complain if the product got faulty, like the buttons or dials. Don't complaint about how it looks, or comparing with sony etc, .. I am glad that dpreview compare it with RX10, .. i am guessing, This is not just cheap ordinary camera,.... Pls. Stop Saying unhappiness complaints, try it, see it, feel it,.. think... and say something about it.

10X is not a super zoom. All we have here is a big inconvenient camera with (relatively) little zoom with a lens that is (relatively) slow on the not so wide end (where most folks use it the most) and (relatively) fast on the long end.

300m is what I use for kids soccer and it's barely enough, forget about birds etc.

It's hard to rationalize the cost and size when you can get a pocketable 7X LF1 for under $400.

"It's hard to rationalize the cost and size when you can get a pocketable 7X LF1 for under $400.

You're always going to pay more (in price and size) for constant aperture speed. Variable aperture lenses are cheap and easy to make. Even in DSLR lenses, constant aperture zooms are so much more expensive (and so much larger) than variable aperture zooms. Obviously, one *big* reason why someone would pay more for the Stylus 1 over a Panasonic LF1 is that constant f/2.8 zoom. Plus, with the Stylus 1, you get more to hold onto, with an actual grip. It'll also probably handle better (more DSLR-like), and it also gives you a hotshoe. So, yes, the Stylus 1 is more expensive and bigger than the LF1. But you're also getting more camera! Pay more, get more.

I don't think many people are going to compare the Stylus 1 to the LF1. They are two totally different classes of cameras: pocket point-n-shoot vs bridge camera.

Considering LF1 and stylus1 - I'd see the LF1 more as high-class take-always pocketable while you still have a decent Dslr in your shelf. If one wants only one camera the Stylus1 looks like a fair concept.

"10X is not a super zoom. All we have here is a big inconvenient camera with (relatively) little zoom with a lens that is (relatively) slow on the not so wide end (where most folks use it the most) and (relatively) fast on the long end."

It is a typical all purpose zoom though, like the APS-C 18-200mm & M4/34's 14-150mm & that is a useful zoom length.

I for one am very interested in this camera having an E-M5 kit & wishing for something small & light on occasions & this will suit very well (having seen results from the same sensor in the XZ-2). If you're going to soccer then take your kit & 300mm lens & also for birds, but go to a street fair (festival) & this Stylus1 will be just perfect without having that heavier bag hanging off the shoulder.

It doesn't have a specific 'silent mode' like Fujifilm cameras do, but you can go into the menu and turn off operational sounds (the shutter is essentially silent). If you don't pop the the flash up, it won't fire.

"...The Stylus 1 isn't as ambitious as the RX10 ... but it's also considerably smaller and significantly less expensive" Come on !! A Stylus 1 weighs LESS THAN HALF an RX10, therefore comparing them is ABSURD as comparing an RX10 (810 gr.) to a professional SRL equipped with a professional zoom lens (weighing over 1600 grs.).For us travellers, PORTABILITY is a prime concern, and all comparisons should be made between comparably portable cameras!

My main camera is an E-M5. Very happy with it, a few primes and a few zooms.

I have an RX100, which requires some compromise in IQ (IMO) but is pocketable.

I have a Nikon P510 which zooms to 1000mm. Major IQ compromise, but it gives me reach on the cheap. Very cheap.

The Stylus 1 fits somewhere in the middle of all that. If it was pocketable it could replace the Sony. If it had length it could replace the Nikon. If it had a bigger sensor/better IQ it could replace the E-M5. But it doesn't have any of those things.

I'd consider it for my only camera, if I chose to have just one camera. But I'm just not there yet.

I was keen till I read Richard Butler's First Impressions where he says, "...once I've made the decision to carry something that isn't pocketable, I want a step up in image quality to make up for that inconvenience."Nothing truer has ever been said. I didn't bother reading on. Despite being unashamedly an Olympus fan boy, I no longer have any interest in this camera.

Well, then Richard Butler, I guess you have no interest in a lot of cameras from Sony, Panasonic, Nikon, Canon, Fuji, etc., that have a small sensor and don't fit in a pocket. Correct? It is NOT limited to Olympus, is it?

I own and use large and small cameras. I use large cameras for quality and small ones for occasional convenience.But once I go to a larger body I expect (and require) that it include a larger sensor. Otherwise why bother with the larger camera?I normally like Olympus cameras but I don't really get this one. I'm not knocking those who do like this, just saying I do not get the appeal of it.

After having the RX100 it's very difficult for me to step down to a small-sensor camera ... The RX100 has much darker lens at the tele end but who cares with its excellent high ISO performance, where a ISO1600 looks better than ISO400 on small sensor cameras. + on the RX100 you can crop a lot or reduce pixel count and zoom longer or use the excellent Clear Zoom... I won't make a compromise with this Olympus, it makes no sense to a RX100 owner..One bad thing abour RX100: shoting with it is soooo boooring.... I have/had the S95, E-PL1, F200EXR, FZ200 Nokia808 PureView and they all make lots more fun to shoot with.

ANd the samples are not looking very good to me.... My Nokia 808 will beat this Oly hands down on wide angle comparison.

"In the graph below, the lower the line, the better the camera is likely to be for low-light image quality and blurring backgrounds, at any given equivalent focal length."

Aperture is Aperture. Yes DOF is inversely proportional to sensor size, but light gathering, the number of photons per unit area is a constant. So the blurring background part is correct but the low light part is not, all things being equal with sensor density.

This is not the total photons per unit time on the whole sensor area that matters actually, but ONLY the total photons per unit time on each photosite. And as the photosite of a small sensor is usually smaller, it catches less photons per unit time so the signal/noise ratio is lower. And the photosite is also more quickly saturated in strong light, thus the dynamic range is also lower. And so the IQ...

"Number of photons per unit area is indeed the same, but in the larger sensor has a larger area, so will receive more photons per unit time."

This is certainly valid but I am not sure what this has to do with the graph with a y axis labelled equivalent aperture?

"This is not the total photons per unit time on the whole sensor area that matters actually, but ONLY the total photons per unit time on each photosite. And as the photosite of a small sensor is usually smaller, it catches less photons per unit time so the signal/noise ratio is lower. "

Exactly which is I included the caveat on sensor density, ie photosite size.

The problem I have with this graph is that is reinforces the myth that f2.8 is not equal to f2.8 when it most certainly is. If you had labelled the y axis something like -

@pelicaneng - it's also equivalent in terms of absolute size of the aperture (which is why D-O-F is also equivalent) - an F8 aperture on a 100mm lens for full frame would be 12.5mm in diameter - the same as an F4 aperture on a 50mm lens on a 2x crop camera.

The point is that the two are equivalent (not identical to) one another in most of the respects that are relevant to photography.

Yes the area at 122mm2 and therefore the diameter at 12.5mm is the same. So the total amount of light available to the sensor is the same. But, the photons per unit area are not the same, in fact there are four times as many photons per unit area for the crop sensor (225 mm2 vs 864mm2), I am still not sure how you are applying this to the graph of aperture expressed as f number. This is why lens aperture is so useful. f4=f4=f4 at equivalent FOV. My 100mm lens at F4 on FF delivers the same amount of light/area as the 50mm F4 lens on my 2xCrop. ie 490mm2 vs 122 mm2 which is equivalent to the ratio of the sensor ares. Given similar sensor pixel pitch/sensor generation/fab the low light performance should be identical

My issue is the labeling of the y axis and the reference to low light sensitivity. Aperture as expressed as f number which is what you used on the y axis is independent of this.

@pelicaneng. That's the point - these two systems (FF with 100mm F8 and 2x crop with F4) would receive different light intensities over different areas, but the two cancel each other out.

So, if they're both the same pixel count - the small sensor will have a higher intensity of light but its pixels are smaller, so the total number of photons-per-pixel will be the same.

If they were the same pixel size, then the large sensor will receive less light per pixel, but will have more pixels. These can either be scaled down to the same pixel count as the smaller sensor (with the expectation of noise averaging to around the same level), because the overall light going to make up the image is the same (despite lower intensity).

A pretty ugly concoction, but somehow Olympus ( and Sony therefore as major share holder) are committed to a superzoom and retro PEN / OM styling.|Better off doing an mFT 16mpx chip with a non interchangeable 24-120 collapsing zoom for around the 700 USD mark IMHO. Let Fuji amd Panny fight it out with Nikon following soon after in the superzoom sector.

The Sony RX10 is a more interesting camera compared to Stylus, considering the sensor size and overall look. The styllus looks now as one of those "me too" products, shaded by the Sony f/2.8 megazoom camera. It is more than a compact... I wanted to buy it immediately after I saw announcement. The Stylus 1... I believe that this is a step in a wrong direction. I have a Panasonic GF5 4/3 camera with collapsable 14-42 zoom. It is as small (if not smaller) as most of small sensor compact cameras (except for the protruding lens). Well, it does not have the F/2.8 aperture, but this kit did not cost me 700 USD either.

I have an XZ-1. Low light performance is worse, controls are worse, no EVF, almost 3 times less reach, and lens slower on the long end. How is this camera not worth the price of admission when compared to that?

@caverd - yeah the 16mpx sensor probably the first couple of Olympus (sony built) sensors which are mFT optimised or you could say that they will never see light of day in the four thirds format .....which differs in software due to the distortion mFT lens mount distance creates but then also on chip image acquisition can be improved on chip. FT is dead for better or for worse.

How about those of us who want to take pictures of birds far away, the moon to fill the frame and planets? 300mm zoom isnt enough, I find myself using a TC even with a 720mm superzoom! and the weight of a large sensor camera plus large lens is simply not an option

Superzooms are like megapixels. Point and shooters are easily impressed by zoom ratios as a metric when buying, when probably 98%* of their photos are taken at base wide angle (think group photos, landscape, selfies). A 20-50mm equivalent would cover most point and shooters' needs while allowing for a bigger sensor within reasonable size constraints. Think Canon G1X but with less range...

* I ran a quick script parsing the EXIF info from my siblings' photo backups, who are P&Srs, and came with about 96% at base wide, 2.5% just off base, 1% normal (30-50mm)... Fair enough this is not a large sampling base but was an interesting exercise nonetheless...

Aaand, those people can go buy an RX100 or similar with a big wide angle aperature and modest zoom. Those that want extra range to take pictures of their kids playing soccer and birds and stuff can continue to buy a superzoom such as this.

I say, let people have their super zooms so long as the quality isn't awful. Unfortunately, it usually is. I remember the first Tamron 28-200 lenses. Compact, light, versatile, and lousy. Sold like hotcakes.

Some just love the longest zoom possible. Some just want more megapixels without knowing the relationship between number of pixels and sensor size. Some are not willing to pay for quality and will only pay for discounted 3 years old "end of life" cameras. Some are overly concern about weight and will not want anything bigger than a P&S camera. Many are not interested to learn the finer art of photography but just want to take random snapshots.

There is no perfect camera which will suit everybody. So, one just have to know who he is and buy what is suitable for himself.

However, professionals would know exactly what they want, are willing to pay for quality and would not go on complaining about everything.

As for more contributers here I'm very underwhelmed by the samples I've seen so far, both in normal conditions as in low light...very ''soft'' colours, lots of grain. The Nikon 7700-samples are nice, bright and crispy in comparison!

year 2013 and still 1/1/7 .This idiots have not learnt that this cameras are not going to sell by just changing name from abc to xyz each year.Change freaking sensor to 1 inch or to 4/3 or to an aps c.Dpreview please stop publishing first revew of these junk cameras which is already dead on arrival..

Starting October 1st, Getty Images will no longer accept images in which the models have been Photoshopped to "look thinner or larger." The change was made due to a French law that requires disclosure of such images.

A court ruling our of Newton, Massachusetts has set an important legal precedent for drone pilots: federal drone laws will now trump local drone regulations in situations where the two are in conflict.

macOS High Sierra came out today, but if you use a Wacom tablet you need to wait a few weeks before you upgrade. According to Wacom, they won't have a compatible driver ready for you until "late October."

Vitec, the company that owns popular accessory maker Manfrotto, has just acquired JOBY and Lowepro for a cool $10.3 million in cash. The acquisition adds JOBY and Lowepro to Vitec's already sizable collection of camera gear brands.

A veteran photojournalist, Rick Wilking secured a spot in the path of totality for the August solar eclipse. While things didn't quite pan out as predicted, an unexpected subject in the sky and a quick reaction made for a once-in-a-lifetime shot.